Katy Perry Re-Writes History!!!

[Deleted]

Aug 28, 2011 14:28:35 GMT -5 @2m said:

Most people who care whether or not it is 5 consecutive singles or 5 consecutive radio singles or not will be obsessed with the charts.

The general populace will listen to the music and not really care about the trivia or what number is it at this week or the hourly travels of these songs on itunes or the % increase in AI that it needs to be number one. That stuff is for chart-obsessed folks.

The chart-obssessed folks post here (and similar sites) and read Billboard and Joel Whitburn books, not wikipedia.

The general populace perception is what matters in the end imo. The general populace hears about "oh wow she tied michael jackson, I wanna see how her songs did" or "after looking at that I wanna see how my old favourite singer/band did, let me go check their pages too" and goes to Wikipedia. They don't see "oh look this promo single was in between california gurls and teenage dream, doesn't count!" or "oh man, that Cannibal promo single totally ruined Ke$ha's top ten streak!".

The chart-obsessed at the ones who word it however they please to make the records sound the way they want them to sound & thus we end up with a bunch of different, oddly specific records. The general populace sees what actually matters.

[Deleted]

I know many Katy Perry fans who listen to Katy Perry songs because of the music they hear on TV, youtube, radio and even some dance games on Nintendo, and I guess in one case, perhaps Sesame Street. ;)

And these poeple were not even born yet when the "Bad" album was released

Ask these particular people that I know, what is the current chart position of the latest Katy Perry song or mention 5 #1's or consecutive weeks in the top 10, they will not know or care.

I have no data to back this up but I tend to believe most music listeners out there listen to the music for the music because they like it and pay little or no attention to its position on the Billboard charts or its hourly movement on itunes.

[badrobot]

Aug 28, 2011 14:45:40 GMT -5 @2m said:

I know many Katy Perry fans who listen to Katy Perry songs because of the music they hear on TV, youtube, radio and even some dance games on Nintendo, and I guess in one case, perhaps Sesame Street. ;)

And these poeple were not even born yet when the "Bad" album was released

Ask these particular people that I know, what is the current chart position of the latest Katy Perry song or mention 5 #1's or consecutive weeks in the top 10, they will not know or care.

I have no data to back this up but I tend to believe most music listeners out there listen to the music for the music because they like it and pay little or no attention to its position on the Billboard charts or its hourly movement on itunes.

So completely true.

Chart followers are a tiny subset of the population.

Frankly I've always thought following the charts is much more enjoyable if you look at it as interesting statistics rather than some judgment of quality or "proof" of superiority or something.

[Adonis the DemiGod!]

Aug 28, 2011 13:50:01 GMT -5 @2m said:

Aug 28, 2011 13:32:12 GMT -5 Adonis the DemiGod! said:

So if an official single doesn't hit the hot 100 does it still count 2m?

This thread is about Katy Perry and the suggested belief that the 5#1's hit consecutively.

I do believe there were 5 #1's, they were clearly not consecutive as you had a couple singles "not actively promoted to radio", that charted.

These two songs are not "radio singles" because they were not played on the radio but, nevertheless, still "singles", as they sold well enough to chart on their own.

Not sure what an "official single" is.

In order to compare apples to apples... Katy has 5singles that hit #1consecutively.

[Deleted]

If "single" is defined as a song that must be promoted to radio to be classified as a single - I agree - I already said as much



The chart we are saying she got 5 CONSECUTIVE #1's on, is also home to songs that do not meet this boards definition of "single"

So it all depends on how you choose to define it

[Deleted]

Come on Katy beat Whitney's record and go for 8 in a row!!!! :)

[Devil Marlena Nylund]

I think this is the same argument that has occurred before but just different situations. A record like this you can choose to argue over but because people have different values as to what a record will entail, you'll argue and nothing will come of it. Agree to disagree that people have different definitions of what the record is. When you discuss it in the future, acknowledge the parts that an asterisk would be included for to clarify that you're aware of what you're talking about.

Katy Perry has 5 consecutive #1 singles - when counting singles, ie. songs promoted to radio. It doesn't get more specific than that. Everything else, to me, just seems like a waste of time.

[Hefty Hanna]

I cannot believe that there is 11 pages of discussion over this.

[spooky21]

Aug 28, 2011 17:33:21 GMT -5 Devil Marlena Nylund said:

Katy Perry has 5 consecutive #1 singles - when counting singles, ie. songs promoted to radio. It doesn't get more specific than that. Everything else, to me, just seems like a waste of time.

Seriously, it's doesn't get any blacker or whiter than that. Trying to add qualifiers sounds a bit desperate.

[Adonis the DemiGod!]

Aug 28, 2011 17:21:18 GMT -5 @2m said:

If "single" is defined as a song that must be promoted to radio to be classified as a single - I agree - I already said as much



The chart we are saying she got 5 CONSECUTIVE #1's on, is also home to songs that do not meet this boards definition of "single"

So it all depends on how you choose to define it

I'm just saying that if a song hits #1 on the HOT 100 from sales alone do you really think the record company is not going to make it a single immediately? Have we ever seen a case where a record company elected not to send a #1 single to radio stations to play?